D.C. Notebook: The Iraqi kabuki dance …

WASHINGTON – The stare-down between Democrats and the White House over funding the Iraq war continued today, with the rhetoric edging closer to the world of pro wrestling than high government diplomacy.

In a nutshell, the dispute comes down to conditions. President Bush asked yesterday to meet with Democrats to discuss the stalled funding package. But he said he would not budge on Democrat’s demands that a fixed date to begin withdrawing troops remain in the bill.

Those preconditions incensed Democrats and they were still smoldering today.

”Our message to the President is, vote for the (funding) supplemental and support our troops as we have done. What we’re calling for is a change of strategy and we believe that’s what we need,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said in one of the more restrained responses.

”I think the American public voted in November for change and they can’t understand why the president has isolated himself,” she said.

Ranking Republican Mitch McConnell responded with equally tough words, saying the president will veto the bill as written and Democrats will be responsible for the consequences.

”The president will veto any bill that has an arbitrary withdrawal date or in effect a surrender date, a date that notifies the enemy when we intend to give up,” he said.
”Our commanders need the funds now. The shortage has begun to kick in and is creating problems.”

Fair enough. But getting an answer to the more important question, at least is who will get the blame when the Pentagon starts pinching pennies. Democrats believe — though not entirely with conviction — that Bush will be blamed. Republicans say Democrats will pay a heavy price.

”If he vetoes the bill all (and the military runs out of money) it will be his fault,” Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc.

But when asked if the public at large will hold the same view he softened.

”I don’t know for sure. I know they (meaning Republicans) will do everything they can to blame the Democratic congress. I think the American people will know better.”

Which beings us back to Bush’s offer for all sides to come to the White House for a chat.
Even moderate Democrats who loathe a hard date for withdrawal happily – though more politely – bash Bush.

”There’s no real dialogue on Iraq,” Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said. ”I don’t want to imply a motivation … but the way I heard the offer was like almost a demand you come over and let me straighten you out. It didn’t seem to be an offer for dialogue. It almost was an offer to have a face-to-face confrontation.”